THE WHITE MAN'S NIGHTMARE.
(TO TDB EDITOR OF TILE "SPICOTILTOR."]
Sut,—I have read with interest the article in last week's Spectator entitled " The White Man's Nightmare," which criticises a paper of mine in the Nineteenth Century. Will you permit me to reply through your columns on certain points on which the writer of the article in question appears to be under a misapprehension ?
In the first place, amongst the "facts " which the writer enumerates, he omits to mention the all-important one that the agents of the Senussia are at this moment • actively employed throughout the African Continent in preparing for a simultaneous revolt amongst the "men differing in race, traditions, aspirations, and geographical situation." Also, that Mohammedanism is making giant strides amongst the pagan tribes of AfriCa, thereby furnishing all these widely separated races with one common enthusiasm, and that the
extermination of the Europeans in Africa is the raison d'être of the Senussia.
Secondly, the article in question gives the impression that in my article in the Nineteenth Century I suggested that Europe was in danger of being invaded and defeated by Africa. I quote one sentence from the article to this effect :—
"Even Asia could not now conquer Europe; and the idea that Africa could is one of those dreamy absurdities, born of a confusion between hatred and military strength, which for some unknown reason seem just now to obsess all but the best trained soldiers and Admirals of Europe."
What the latter part of this somewhat obscure sentence means I do not pretend to understand. However, be its meaning what it may, the fact remains that nowhere have I ever suggested that Africa could conquer Europe, nor do I imagine that any sane person could hold that such a thing is within the bounds of possibility—during the twentieth century at all events. What I did say was that Europe stands an exceedingly good chance of being ousted from Africa in the near Wive, in support of which 1 may quote Somaliland, where the Mullah, though defeated, is at present a far gteater power than before the recent expedition, while British prestige is correspondingly lower.
Thirdly, the writer calls upon the testimony of history to prove that a barbarian army could never defeat the forces of a civilised Christian Power, or so I read his slightly ambiguous words. I bad always understood that history shows us a succession of high civilisations falling before barbarian attacks : Attila and Timour will serve as instances. The
writer asks : " Why should the Arabs stake their lives for the benefit of negro pagans," &c.? An equally rational question would be : Why did the Japanese risk their lives for the Manchurians in the recent war ? The object of the Japanese was to defeat Russia ;. the object of the Arabs is to shake off the European dominion, to which end they will welcome any pagan allies, knowing full well that their object accomplished, Islam, the most virile and proselytising of religions in Africa, will absorb those allies into its fold. Another question asked is : " Why should the Zulus accept the leadership of the Senoussi ? " I can only answer that I have no idea why they should ; nor did I ever suggest that they would. What I said was that pagan tribes, such as the Zulus, would, in the event of. a great Mohammedan war, take advantage of the embarrassments of their white masters and endeavour to cast off their yoke. Though " the resources of the Senoussi for battle, intellectual and material, may be described as limited," perhaps they may be even less limited than those of the Mandi and of the Somaliland Mullah, who, notwithstanding their limitations, succeeded in their primitive way in fighting some fairly successful battles. On one point I thoroughly agree with my critic, that it is better to spend money upon cannon than to run even a distant risk of being overwhelmed by a coloured soldiery. Cawnpore and Lucknow have taught us that.
Let me bring this, I fear somewhat lengthy, letter to an end by one more comment. In another column in last week's
Spectator I notice the following :—" Captain Wilson consider- ably impairs his claim to a serious hearing by the stress he
lays on the evidence of the notorious Dr. Carl Peters." How- ever notorious Dr. Carl Peters may be, whatever may be his private character and morals, it cannot be questioned that he is one of the greatest living authorities on certain -parts of Africa. This cannot be gainsaid by even his most bitter opponent. The extract I have quoted is also rather mislead- ing in that I did not in my article adduce his evidence, but his opinion, two very different things. While his evidence in certain circumstances might he received with scepticism, his opinion cannot but carry weight, at all events with those who know the man and his work in Africa.
I regret that I have not yet read the article in the Spectator which somewhat forestalled my own, but I am taking steps to procure a copy.—Thanking you in anticipation for your courtesy in publishing this very lengthy letter, I am, Sir, &c., H. A. WILSON..
The George Hotel, West Bay, Bridport, Dorset.
Previous page
